9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Agrasha Alloy Trading Pvt Ltd. under Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007. I order for redetermination of the value under Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 at USD 86,488/ equivalent to Rs. 41,73 804/-. 3.2 l demand the total duty amount of Rs. 2,04,814/- leviable on the total redetermined value of Rs. 41,73,804/-. I order for recovery of differential duty of Rs. 1,03,356/- after adjusting an amount of Rs. 1 01,458/- towards the Customs duty already paid at the time of clearance of goods. 3.3 I order for confiscation of the goods total weight 282.64 MTS, and redetermined value USD 86,488-/- equivalent to Rs. 41,73,804/- (details as per Annexure A Lo Show Cause Notice) under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since goods were already released provisionally after taking bond and bank guarantee, I impose a redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs), under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. This amount may be recovered from the Bank Guarantee given by the importer. 3.4 Penalty of Rs. 1,03,356/- (Rupees One Lakh three thousand three hundred fifty six only ) is imposed under Section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s Agrasha Alloy Trading Pvt. Ltd. 3.5 Penalty of Rs. 1,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoice value on the Bill of Entry. 2.2 First two Bill of Entries i.e. No 752673 & &52681, were duly assessed by the Custom Authorities, and the value on the basis of the Floor Price fixed by the Customs, was enhanced to US$ 300 PMT. These two consignments were cleared by the Appellant 1 for home consumption after payment of duty as assessed by custom authorities on the enhanced value. 2.3 Acting on the basis of intelligence that the declared value of consignments, was much below the actual value, officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), seized these two consignments from the godown of M/s Hindustan Roadways, Village Valivali, Dahisar Mori, Thane Pune Road, Thane, 11/12.11.2009. 2.4 Remaining two consignments for which other two Bill of Entries i.e. No 837343 and 837346, were put on hold at the port of importation. 2.5 Thereafter investigation were done by DRI, and show cause notice issued to the appellants asking them to show cause as to why- * Total declared value all the four consignments, US$ 53,334/- (includes 2% commission) equivalent to Rs. 25,77,027/- should not be rejected and redetermined at actual transaction value of US$ 86,488/- equivalent to Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the floor price of HMS which is USD 300 per MT under Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. * the facts to be considered are as follows:- a) Goods under import and under consideration in the present matter are LMS and not HMS. b) Floor price of HMS fixed by the department can at best be termed as minimum customs values and arbitrary and fictitious values. Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 specifically prescribes against fixing of value in terms of that Rule on the basis of minimum customs values and arbitrary and fictitious values. c) Rule 9(1) provides for the manner of valuation by taking into consideration prevailing international prices. As per the contemporary prices published in Metal Bulletin, the prevailing international prices are - Goods Prices for Week ending 19 Nov 2009 Prices for Week ending 25 Nov 2009 Heavy Melting $ 210.83 per MT $ 217.50 per MT No.2 Bundles $ 172.00 per MT $ 172.00 per MT No.1 Bundles $ 165.00 per MT $ 165.00 per MT * In para 12 of the show cause notice, DRI states that - "The Customs authorities at the port of import of the said 4 consignments had fixed a floor price of USD 300 PMT for the purpose of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for confiscation and various persons involved in the act of mis-declaration were liable for penal action. * From the perusal of Annexure A to the Show Cause Notice, it is quite evident appellant contention in respect of payment of duty to tune of Rs. 2,65,198/- is not correct. This duty which they have paid is in respect of two consignments out of the four consignments imported. The demand for differential duty is in respect of other two consignments. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as following in impugned order: "8. I have carefully gone through the case, the oral and written submissions made. I find that in both the appeals, the appellants had paid the required pre-deposit. I, therefore, proceed to decide the case on merits. Since, both the appeals are pertaining to common Order-in-Original: hence, the same are being decided by a common order. 9. I find that the Original Authority has found that M/s. Viking International, Fujairah. (UAE) used to procure the goods viz. tinplates, C.R. Sheets, HMS. LMS etc from various suppliers based in E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 has admitted the fact that the two consignments mentioned at Sl No 3 and 4 in Annexure A to SCN had been assessed to Custom duty @ US$ 300 PMT. I find that during the personal hearing Shri C K Chaturvedi, Consultant and Shri Madhukant Agarwal (the Appellant No 2) informed that for the sake of expediency they had agreed to value of loading @ US$ 300 PMT." 4.3 Undisputed fact, is that the Appellant 1, has imported four consignments of LMS, for which four bills of entries have been filed by him. Out of these the Bill of Entries filed during the month of November, 2009 were duly assessed by the Customs and the declared value was enhanced from US$ 185 PMT to US$ 300 PMT. Appellants have agreed to the enhancement of the value and paid the duty as assessed. 4.4 These two consignments were after clearance from customs were detained and seized by the DRI, and after investigations, these two consignments along with the other two consignments for which the bill of entries were filed in January 2010, were proposed for confiscation for mis-declaration of the value, stating that appellant had accepted the enhance value, so the charge of mis-decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile reconsidering the issue on the above aspect, the authorities need to establish the charge of mis-declaration by referring to various evidence produced by the appellant to establish that prevailing international price of the LMS at the relevant time was as per their declared value. In any case appellants were always entitled to ask for a speaking order, for enhancement of the value of the consignments imported in November 2009, in terms of Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.9 In our view the entire issue of mis-declaration of value needs to be reconsidered by the authorities below and proper speaking order giving proper reasoning for the enhancement of value needs to given, just acceptance by the importer of the enhanced value in import of some consignment, solely cannot be ground for establishing the charge of mis-declaration against him. 4.10 In view of the discussions as above, we are not able to sustain the impugned order to the extent of the appeals filed by these two appellants and remand the matter for reconsideration to original authority. 5.1 The appeals are allowed and the matter remanded back to the original authority for reconsideration of matter against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
